On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 13:57:13 -0400, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> The colonists felt they had the right to defend themselves, and did so
>> - and based on the experience of the revolutionary war, decided that it
>> should be one of the fundamental rights of citizenship so the
>> government couldn't take other rights away at a whim.  The purpose was
>> to provide for defense (indeed, that's part of the 2nd amendment to the
>> constitution - "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the
>> security of a free State [...]"
> 
> The idea has its merits. It's difficult for a totalitarian oppressive
> state to form if its citizens have the firepower to resist.

Yep.

> OTOH, such gun-craziness probably has more negative effects than the
> hypothetical positive...

I agree.  Especially since the amount of firepower has changed a lot 
since the 2nd amendment was ratified in 1791 (IIRC).

I don't think there was a weapon available in 1791 that could fire 35 
rounds a second.  That's pretty commonplace now.

Jim

Post a reply to this message